If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Maybe I was not clear enough, or you misinterpreted me. Anyway, as of now, Linux has limitations. But in the future, Linux most probably will only be better. IBM basically says this too. IBM AIX is phased out, it will be killed. IBM will bet on Linux instead. This is outspoken and official. So, basically, IBM also says that Linux is not mature enough right now. IBM sales personal always tries to sell IBM AIX which is very expensive, and as a last resort, IBM tries to sell Linux. But IBM does not try to sell Linux the first thing IBM does.

I have read on a link here, that there is only one full time developer on BTRFS. I know there are part time developers, and probably some hobby developers working on their spare time. But still, if Oracle is really seriously committed to BTRFS, they should dedicate much more resources, preferably some ZFS developers. You can not develop an Enterprise filesystem in the basement, by some part time developers. If Oracle wants to sell and earn money on BTRFS, then it could be wise to develop most of BTRFS in house? Now there is one full time dev, and other part time developers. I dont see how you can get an enterprise product to support and sell, from such a small effort?

But maybe I am wrong, as you say. Or maybe I am right: now that Oracle has ZFS, then Oracle quickly lost interest in developing another filesystem that does exactly the same thing as ZFS does, without adding something new. Why develop two identical products? Does not make sense from a business perspective. But time will tell. Maybe both of us are wrong!

Definitively you are wrong.

Oracle uses linux and has linux customers interested in datacenters. Oracle itself uses linux internally. So yes, oracle is very interested in btrfs.

Btrfs is a true open source project. it not depends entirely on Oracle, how many plp work at linux kernel (Linux International)?? and how big and evolved is linux kernel?? Btrfs project is similar, lots of devs from different companies: Red Hat, SUSE, Intel, IBM, HP, Fujitsu, etc are working on it because a lot of linux customers and companies are interested. Please stop FUD on this and read:

Oracle uses linux and has linux customers interested in datacenters. Oracle itself uses linux internally. So yes, oracle is very interested in btrfs.

Btrfs is a true open source project. it not depends entirely on Oracle, how many plp work at linux kernel (Linux International)?? and how big and evolved is linux kernel?? Btrfs project is similar, lots of devs from different companies: Red Hat, SUSE, Intel, IBM, HP, Fujitsu, etc are working on it because a lot of linux customers and companies are interested. Please stop FUD on this and read:

I am only saying that I believe if Oracle is serious about BTRFS, they should have dedicated far more resources internally than one full time paid developer. That is not FUD. It is true. And I do make it clear it is my BELIEF. I do not have proof or evidence that Oracle is abandoning BTRFS. It is just a guess from my side.

And I also say that normally, a company does not develop two identical products. And many people agrees that ZFS is superior to BTRFS. So I am asking, why develop an inferior copy, instead of betting on the original ZFS?

I make it clear that I guess and I think so. I do not claim to have it as facts. I know there are more than one full time paid developer - but if Oracle really wants to sell products on BTRFS, then Oracle should keep most of the developers in house, so Oracle can tailor BTRFS the way Oracle wants it.

Again, I do not claim these are facts. I just guess.

When I do not guess, and I claim facts, I always back things up with research papers, etc. But these thoughts of mine, are not facts. Just guesses. Guesses are not FUD. FUD is something like "I have heard somewhere from someone that Oracle is killing off BTRFS, you better migrate now to ZFS" - that is a lie and FUD. I have not read from an Oracle executive that BTRFS is getting killed. It would be a lie and FUD.

You must show them to proof such papers exists, otherwise it's nothing more then FUDing and trolling. However, SUN FUDs.

No I must not. FUD article on wikipedia does not specify which research journals the papers must be from. You are wrong on this.

Originally Posted by kraftman

I don't understand. While Solaris is dead then it can't be better then Linux which is not dead. Do you mean something which is dead is better then something which is not?

Again (for the fourth(?) time): please specify in what way Solaris is dead? Do you mean it is not sold anymore? I do not know in which way you mean Solaris is dead. How can I show you are wrong, when you dont specify anything? It is like:
-Kraftman, I think of something (I will not tell you what I think of) but I want you to disprove me. Go ahead.

Do you want proof that Solaris is still sold? What do you want me to show? Can you please specify? Do you claim that Solaris is not sold anymore? What is it that you claim?

Jalyst wrote
"Since when is solaris dead?
Still looks pretty healthy to me. "

Originally Posted by kraftman

According to some link it's dead already. However, read some previous posts.

Kraftman, you can not just post to any link. That is not proof at all. In that case, you can start a blog of your own, and write what you want, and then post to your blog. That is wrong to do (circular argument).

Instead, you must find credible links. Most credible are researchers and professors. If lots of professors and researchers say something, then it is more credible than if you post to an anonymous blog post. Also, other good and famous experts such as developers are credible.

If I want to post something negative about Linux, then I can not post to a Linux competitor such as a Sun blog. That would not be credible. Instead I must post to Linux people saying bad things about Linux - THAT is credible.

If you want to post something negative about Solaris, then you must find credible links. Such as; Solaris guys saying something bad about Solaris. Not Linux people saying bad things about Solaris - that is not credible. Or, if you can find some Linux developers looking at the Solaris code and they say the Solaris source code is bad. In short, try to find famous experts or researchers that say something.

You know, it is unlikely that a researcher say lies and false things, because other professors look at a research paper and if the professors find lies, the research paper will not be accepted into the scientific journal. Therefore, it is unlikely that research papers posts lies.

Also, other good sources are official benchmarks, because you reproduce the benchmarks. It is not possible to lie with benchmarks.

In short, you must find links that are probably not lies. Researchers (probably) dont lie. Official white papers dont lie. etc. But, competitors are not credible at all - they have every reason to lie. So your post about "Solaris is dead" is not credible. If you have Solaris developers saying that Solaris is dead, then it is a more credible link and more preferable.

Jesus, Kraftman. Don't you know this? Have you ever studied at university? Must I tell you everything about how you do higher University studies? Havent you studied "scientific theory" and how to do research and establish knowledge?

As I have written here before: OpenSolaris source code is alive and well. It is the basis for next gen Solaris 11. Solaris 11 is on it's way and will maybe be announced next month on Oracle Open World.

OpenSolaris distro (which is based on parts of the OpenSolaris source code) is another thing. Maybe Oracle has killed the OpenSolaris distro. We dont know. Maybe Oracle will tell us the status of OpenSolaris distro, next month?

In any case, there are several OpenSolaris community distros out there: Schillix, Nexenta, Korona, Milax, etc.

Because you have not read this thread from the beginning, I post this article again. Here is a link to a research paper about how XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc does not protect your data - which is what I have claimed earler.http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169

I have also posted several research papers which backs up my claim about ZFS giving good protection, whereas common filesystems (including Raid-5 and raid-6) do not offer good data protection.

Do you want me to repost those research papers for you?

Nevermind Kraftman, claiming I do not post to research papers., He just lies about me